Kill a Few for the Gipper

Its a title appropriate to Iraq, when you consider the reasons given for going to war: first it was Saddam's WMDs; then it was removing a brutal dictator and saving hundreds of thousands of lives; then it was installing Democracy in the Middle East; then it was Democracizing the world; and now it is all of them combined into one grand "reason". But justification for war is not my main theme this time but "troop morale".
An issue being talked about but not analyzed to any degree. The question that should be asked is; "what is the result of having "high troop morale?"
My experience with it meant that the troops were psychologically "up" to doing anything they were ordered to do; i.e., kill and get killed. A soldier with "high morale" is "gung-ho", willing to charge forward on command, put him/herself into danger.
I'm sure most parents and friends told their departing loved ones to keep their heads down and not take chances--a contradiction to what "high morale" advocates want their troops to do.
A military commander doesn't want their troops thinking about saving their hides when he wants them to attack. What do parents want--to have their kid dead or alive?
"Low morale" might mean that troops will act out of a sense of self-preservation, preferring to keep their heads down and not forge recklessly forward on some officers command.
The whole issue of high versus low morale boils down to why are we in Iraq in the first place.
Commanders and the administration have been lying to the troops over and over about how they are getting back at the terrorists for 9/11, that they are fighting for "freedom" of the Iraqi people and the U.S. "Low morale" means the troops aren't buying into the propaganda.
The title "Kill a Few for the Gipper"? It's a wonder the Neo-Cons didn't think of it as a slogan--for morale's sake.

Sun Tzu and Iraq

Sun Tzu was a general in the Kingdom of Wu (China) about 300 to 500 B.C. He wrote thirteen chapters on war titled "The Art of War", which has been widely read in military circles around the world; however, his principles one would have to conclude, have been largely ignored in the war against Iraq; when you consider the long and ongoing struggle taking place there.
There was no doubt that the U.S., and its token allies, would prevail militarily against Iraq's army. It was obvious from the start that a military victory was the principal goal; with no thought given to the peace. This was clearly a violation of Sun Tzu's principle of "peace being the object of war".
Another Sun Tzu principle to consider is: "All men can see the individual tactics necessary to conquer, but almost no one can see the strategy out of which total victory is evolved"; which points out, in the light of our present difficulties, that the tactics were successful but the overall strategy was, and is, wrong.
Further, from Chapter VI: "The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will imposed on him". We might ask, who is imposing their will on whom in Iraq?
Also: "That general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend, and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know where to attack. If the enemy's dispositions are visible, we can make for him in one body; whereas, our own dispositions being kept secret, the enemy will be obliged to divide his forces in order to guard against attack from every quarter." The enemy in Iraq has many opportunities to attack and hides, thus avoiding having to defend.
Another principle of Sun Tzu's violated, from Chapter II: "In war, then let your object be victory, not lengthy campaigns." We've been fighting now for how long?
Another principle ignored: "He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign." And "...If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will suffer a defeat"--sound familiar? We kill a few "guerrillas", and they kill a few of us, all because we do not "know" our enemy, cavalierly dismissing them as "thugs".
Our generals in Iraq are said to have autonomy, but my gut says they continually test the political wind.
Sun Tzu's principles have held up for over 2500 years--so what happened in Iraq? Where is the "Mission Accomplished"? What with high powered computers and four star generals, having nothing better to do than play war games, how could we have blundered so badly in Iraq?
A lot of generals might disagree with me when I state that we have no "victory" in Iraq, but they would be arguing against of Sun Tzu and his principle that "the object of war is peace"--where is the peace? Without peace there is no victory. Sun Tzu also wrote; "The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won. whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."
One final quote of interest: "No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle out of pique...a kingdom once destroyed can never come again into being; nor the dead ever be brought back to life. Hence the enlightened ruler his heedful, and the good general full of caution. This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact."

Bush's Defiance?

Go Get-Um Bush is sure brave--I'd like to see him driving around in a HumVee, wearing armor, in the heat and flies, on the streets of Baghdad--then see how "brave" he is. He was sure "willing" to serve in Vietnam, when we were fighting communism and for freedom, wasn't he. Talk is cheap. I'd like to see his flight logs and see just how many hours he spent in jets. No one has asked for his flight logs that I could tell. Most pilots carry logs to keep track of their flight time--where is his?

Making the News or Reporting the News?

Yesterday I watched for two hours CNN. Two hours of smoke and empty dialogue. It was obvious from the scene, and later by an eye-witness, that the plane had run off the end of the runway; yet, all that was heard was speculation ad nauseum about "wind-shear" causing the crash. Then everyone who has ever been on a plane was "paraded", by telephone, to give their "opinions" of what might have happened because no one had any concrete information as to what had happened. Two hours of this stuff!
It is a sad thing to see--news being made rather than being reported. "No information" is not "news". For what the audience was getting (nothing) CNN could have spent five minutes reporting or updating then back to their regular reporting--noooo, far away shots of smoke, a constant string of non-sensical patter; their idea of news is about is as exciting and informative as watching water boil.
Once upon a time news was news. The reporters worked at getting it, news organizations spent time and money bringing a product worthwhile to the viewers and hearers. No more. Cheap sensationalism is the order of the day: and then there is the Bush speech's (that says nothing time and time again) that has to be shown during prime time; the inevitable "news conference" where no information is given (except acknowledgements all around) and no questions are answered because investigations are on-going; and the list goes on.
Political shows are becoming nothing more than platform for propagandists--the hosts nothing more than sound-boards. It is no wonder that the majority of the population in this country is so ignorant of what is going on--the media feeds them pap.
I can't blame all their ignorance on the media; people don't read discriminantly, with a sense of relevance, anymore. That is why astrology and "Intelligent Design" holds credibility to many. A subject for another day perhaps. Guess I'll go back to watching the "news".

Vote 'Em All Out!

Next year we have an election and a great opportunity to send a message to our representatives; by voting them all out. Think of the message that would give to all politicians, not only in the U.S. but all over the world--that the people still have a voice! Restore Democracy! Other messages too, like bad representation is not tolerated; representatives are not voted in to represent special moneyed interests etc.
One politician was questioned recently after the Transportation Bill passed about why he got more "pork" than anyone else in Congress: his reply, "because I've been in Congress longer than anyone else". That answer should clue people to why we should vote them out; i.e., the longer a politician is in office the better they learn how to work the "system", to everyone's detriment. Some people may take that as a "plus", but most of us taxpayers who have to foot the bill might think otherwise.
What are we getting from our government anyway? Who is benefiting from all those tax cuts and government welfare programs? The problem is we, the people, aren't paying attention to what is going on and have been a little too trusting of those who have been giving us "slick" answers.
It would be fun to see the "scramble" if "VoteEmAllOut.org" became a reality.

U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Iraq

The PLAN by the Generals in Iraq is to let the Iraqis take over control of less troublesome areas and let the U.S. troops do the heavy lifting in the more troublesome areas like the Sunni Triangle etc. (That term reminds me of the Iron Triangle, Vietnam)
On the surface it seems to be a good plan but since measures I mentioned in a recent blog, "Rx For Iraq" will not be in place--identification and travel restrictions--the bad guys will just move to the Iraqi controlled areas and continue to wreak havoc. The U.S. is then back to square one.
A troop increase is first necessary to establish security and control; once established, hopes are that troop withdrawals can take place.
Again the administration is depending on rhetoric, not action, to pull chestnuts out of the fire. The Generals were careful to "hedge" their withdrawal plans by stating the usual "if's". The Generals ought to know this guerrilla war could go on indefinitely; like it has in Palestine.
Of course this administration has great confidence in propaganda--or Public Diplomacy, as they call it--since they were able to win reelection using it; and so far have kept near half the U.S. population "mesmerized" using it. It doesn't play abroad however. Our simplistic evaluations of the Arab psyche will lead us into some major faux pas and ultimately to hostile Arab/Muslim reactions. Now that Bush has appointed John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador there is bound to be more ill will than diplomacy in that body for quite some time.